get_display_channel_forecast

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the tool's name without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required filters, or return format. This is effectively a tautology.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with optional parameters and no output schema, making it less useful than a concise description that includes key behavioral details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the report contains, how to use parameters, or what output to expect. It does none of this, leaving the tool functionally opaque for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters, but the schema only provides vague labels ('Date preset', 'Timezone'). The description adds no parameter information, so it does not exceed the baseline. It neither clarifies allowed preset values nor date formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a resource 'display channel forecast report', making the tool's basic purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like get_display_forecast and get_vast_channel_forecast by the 'display channel' qualifier, though it does not explain what a 'channel' means in this context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many forecast-related siblings, it fails to help an agent choose correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.